Each and everyday people around the world make important economic decisions in order to be able to continue their daily lives, but something that many people do not know is that is some cases, cheap things mean higher costs.

Conventional design looks to decrease upfront costs as much as possible.

The quote, “I am not rich enough to afford cheap things”, is a clear representation of this notion. This quote portrays that people who are not rich cannot afford to buy cheap things as they are more expensive over time. This is due to the fact that they tend to need replacement or repair more frequently, thus higher costs incurred. Unfortunately, many people still misconceive and rather fail to see the expense of cheap things.

The same logic and ideology can also be applied to buildings. When building a structure, there are two approaches one can take.

One common option is to go by a conventional design. A conventional design takes note of the upfront cost and tries to decrease it in order to make it correspond with the budget allocated for the project. The majority of the time, this means that lower quality materials must be used in order to reduce costs. These cuts in the quality of materials can include anything from the quality of the paint, to even indispensable aspects of the structure itself such as a waterproofing system. Through using lower quality materials, initial costs will be cut, however, over the long run, it will be more expensive to maintain.

Lower quality materials are less durable and, as a result, have a lower life span. A lower life span, thus results in frequent repair or replacement costs, which will surely exceed the cost of using high-quality materials in the first place. For example, someone has two roofing options, option A which is worth $20, 000 and option B which is $30,000. While option A will only last for approximately 20 years, option B will last about 40 years. By paying an extra $10, 000, 20 years of extra service life is bought. Furthermore, the cost per year for option A accounts to $1,000/year, whereas the cost per year of option B only accounts for about $750/year. Thus, although option A may seem more appealing upfront, the more economical choice is actually option B.

Next week we will discuss the option of “sustainable” design.